2024 Gain Jam Voting Irregularities

Ok, so finally getting to this! Sorry it took a bit. I didn’t want to draw attention away from the Get Large Jam and then September and October was a bit busier for me than I expected so I am quite a bit behind.

With that out of the way we will start with our first post about the voting irregularities that happened last year. A quick thing to note is I will make lots of references to things like TL0, TL1, ect, ect. These are trust levels that are assigned in discourse based on user activity. All you really need to know is that TL0s are new users while everything else above it are active users.

Also, there will be a lot of talking back and forth between WasteLine and RogueWeight. I am not trying to say one is better then another (I personally have not had time to play either of them), but more pointing out that the wave of voting RogueWeight experienced was mainly being motivated by the fact it did not have AI generated content instead of its quality as a game. The time between the calls to vote and the votes is so short its highly likely most of the TL0 votes they received did not play, much less even go to the games itch page before voting.

TLDR;

We received reports from another user that WasteLine was trying to cheat the community vote. After investigation we did not find that WasteLine was cheating the vote in any manner. This was not the answer the reporting user wanted as they just really wanted them disqualified due to their use of AI generated content. This lead to a smear campaign against Jupiter in order to try to put pressure on us to disqualify them and when that was not working they resorted to doing the same things they were accusing WasteLine for to boost the second place game (RogueWeight) to first place to ensure WasteLine would not win community choice.

The main point I would like to get out there is that we did not find any evidence that Jupiter attempted to rig the community vote in any manner. In fact we found evidence to the contrary, with Jupiter discouraging any cheating even when things got rough and instead seeing a 3rd party working to try to get WasteLine disqualified and make sure they lost the vote just because they made use of AI generated content.

While this 3rd party skirted the rules, the way they pushed votes towards RogueWeight was clearly against the spirit of the vote, and the way they tried to smear the reputation of another dev in the community without any evidence was frankly sickening. This was a clear case of a hand full of people who didn’t even participate in the jam throwing their weight around and doing whatever they can to try to change a result they did not like.

How it Started

A few days before we were planning on closing the community vote we received a message from another user that said they believed that Wasteline was cheating by asking their community members to pad the likes on their post. We take claims like this very seriously so I asked for them to provide us with the evidence they had and that we would look into it asap.

The reporting user then provided us with a screen shot of a discord conversation between two users talking about creating dup accounts to pad the vote. Oddly enough though in the same conversation sent to us is the lead of Wasteline (Jupiter) telling the users not to do that. Either way though we thanked the user for the info and told them we would look into it immediately.

Our Initial Investigation

We quickly reached out to Jupiter and began gathering info looking for any possible cheating. What we found out is that there were two users in Wasteline’s discord that were talking about padding the votes (the same two from the screenshot) but Jupiter thought the warning was sufficient and that they were joking so didn’t think they should bother us with it.

Looking at the context of the messages all 3 of us agreed that we would have come to a similar conclusion in their shoes and felt it was a reasonable explanation. Along with that, looking over our site’s data we did not find anything that showed any significant vote padding was going on. We did ask Jupiter to help us check if those two users did double vote so we could remove it if they did and Jupiter agreed to help.

We then got back with the results to the reporting user. We told them that we found no evidence that Wasteline’s team was encouraging any cheating, but we did find two users in their discord may have been cheating. Due to this there is no evidence that justifies disqualifying Wasteline but we are working with them to identify and remove the duplicate votes from those two users.

This was unacceptable to the reporting user. They demanded that we disqualify Wasteline as they were obviously cheating.I explained again that we did not find anything that suggested the Wasteline team was cheating and that it looked like it was just two rogue fans doing something they shouldn’t.

The reporting user was adamant though that they were cheating, so we asked if they had any other evidence or reasons for believing this.They did not have any more evidence but did give the following reasons:

  1. Wasteline makes use of AI generated images and thus should be disqualified
  2. There is no way a game using AI generated content would win community vote so they must be cheating
  3. Wasteline is a trash game and would no way have that many votes legitimately

It was with this we saw that the users actual intention was to just get Wasteline disqualified because they used AI generated content. We thanked them for the tip, and said we were going to track down and remove any fraudulent votes we found and to let us know if they find any more evidence.

With that I thought that this matter was sorted, but I was wrong.

Continued Attempts at getting WasteLine Disqualified

Over the remainder of the incident we would continue to get reports from other people of Wasteline cheating, but all of these reports were just the same screen shot with similar justifications. Talking with some of these people it was obvious they were not told the whole truth as they backed off quickly after having the situation explained. A larger majority was obviously being told to spam report them to try to put pressure on us to disqualify Wasteline.

Along with this a new justification was being thrown about by both the original user and these new people. They claimed that Wasteline should be disqualified because it was Jupiter’s community that was deciding the vote, and not Weight Gamings.

This reasoning, at least to us, was a stretch to say the least. We could see from the numbers we had that the majority of WasteLine’s votes were spread fairly well between the TL2 and TL1 users. This told us that the reverse was actually more likely, most of their community are Weight Gaming users. They did have a fair chunk of TL0 users as well, but nothing beyond what we would expect and nothing that would have really changed the result all that much at that point.

Also, while the concern on its face is fair this has always been a problem when it comes down to popularity votes like this. In the past, if a dev had a large following outside of the site it was not hard for them to win the community vote just by leveraging it. When pressed on this point we received much of the same expected answer. Those instances are different because they didn’t use AI generated content.

The Vote Spikes

It was late at night and I was trying to get to sleep since I had to be up early for work the next day when my phone buzzed. Normally I would ignore it, but I knew we were close to finishing up so I figured Alex may have had a question I didn’t want to keep hanging.

Instead, Alex was letting me know that there was a sudden surge of voting for Rogue Weight. This was odd and a red flag as their voting has been stable for almost a month up to that point, so a sudden jump like that is very suspicious. Alex wanted to call it right there and then for WasteLine as it was obvious something was up, but it was late for me and I wanted to confirm that there was no funny business before we jumped to any action. I told Alex that we should just extend voting by 3 days to give WasteLine a chance to respond and give me time to review the votes for any issues.

For me personally, this was a mistake and in hindsight I should have gone with Alex’s suggestion on the matter.

Looking over the votes for RogueWeight it was obvious something was going on. Before this spike RogueWeight had no likes from TL0 users with all of their likes spread mainly between TL1 and TL2 users.But now they suddenly jumped out to almost a quarter of their votes coming from TL0 users. When we looked at a timeline of when the likes came in we could also see a clear pattern where almost all of them were coming in around the same time.

With this information we were able to map all the spikes back to social media posts and streams being done by the same people trying to get WasteLine disqualified. Looking over them we can see them urging people to join just to vote for RogueWeight and was framing it as a “fight against AI”.

While this is not explicitly against the rules it was against the spirit of the vote since the motivating factor for most of them was obviously not the quality of RogueWeight, but the fact that WasteLine used AI generated content. Further compounding it these same people were trying to use the jump in votes to further push disqualifying WasteLine by saying its proof that WasteLine votes were invalid was the fact that RogueWeight was now in first.

This personally was a very sore point for me, and I could not tell if they were so dense as to think we would not be able to figure out what they were doing or simply just did not care that they were doing what they were accusing WasteLine of.

What we Decided to Do

Unfortunately we were between a rock and a hard place. We never thought a proxy war like this would break out in the community vote. Also, at the end of the day no rules where being broken and while we saw clear evidence of at least the group trying to get WasteLine disqualified was pulling some shady stuff the dev of RogueWeight had nothing to do with it and we would feel bad about punishing them for another group’s actions.

Due to this we decided to let it play out. This resulted in a very aggressive back and forth “tit for tat” voting between WasteLine and the group trying to make sure they did not win community vote. Finally, when the time came for us to close voting we saw that RogueWeight won by a few votes so decided to call it for them.

Final Thoughts and What We can do In the Future

At the end of the day, when all is said and done we only found 3 fraudulent votes with the help of Jupiter and the WasteLine team. And the only reason our anti-spam system did not catch it is all 3 accounts were already existing accounts that the users in question abandoned years ago. And over all that was ~1% of WasteLines votes, well within what we would expect for most games since we always expect some cheating, usually from people just trying to show support for their favorite creators.

So, was all this justified over 3 votes? In my mind the answer is no, but the cheating was not the point for most of the people trying to push for WasteLine to be disqualified. It was more the fact that in their minds there was no way a game that even made partial use of AI generated content could win community choice. The more I interacted with them the more I began to believe that their real fear was that this “unified front” against AI may not be as unified as they may have believed.

I think sometimes a lot of people think I kind of live in my own little world but in reality I seek out opinions from a wide array of people and I am in quite a few communities where I just sit and observe what is going on. It’s one of the reasons I know more about what was going behind the scenes as I could see the conversations being had in other communities and discords where they just forgot I was there. I’ll be getting more into it in my AI discussion but what I have learned from my interactions is the general community’s thoughts on AI are not as clear cut as we may want to believe. I have even seen artists in the same circle have completely different opinions on the tech. I have also seen closed servers completely turn on their own members, their own friends, who dared to use AI to create placeholders for a demo and then ask for help replacing those placeholders with actual art.

Can you just imagine that, being persecuted and told you are not wanted in the very same space you were asking for help, by those who you thought were your friends for one misstep. Do you imagine that helped anyone at the end of the day?

I digress though. To get back on the topic at hand, how can we deal with something like this in the future? Tbh, I don’t quite know yet. There are a few options that we are considering, some suggested by others that we think are worth pursuing but not sure.

  1. Restricts likes to TL1 and up during the jam
    • This would help with the tit for tat voting by requiring users to have to spend some time in the forums to vote but I am not sure if we can limit it to specific categories so it would likely have to be a site wide setting
  2. Find a different way to handle voting
    • About the same as the above but use an external voting system for community vote. I am not sure what we can use for this and we may have to roll our own. This may not be feasible to do with the forums though so may only be viable with the main site.
  3. Rework the rules to allow us to handle suspicious voting better
    • It would be nice to allow us to handle suspicious voting a bit more at our discretion, but it can be hard to separate legit from illegitimate votes outside of obvious situations like what happened last year and could feel like we are tipping the scales when we enforce it.
  4. Get rid of community voting
    • As it says on the tin, we get rid of community voting all together.

At the moment we are still mulling it all over so we are not fully sure what we will do yet. Though I do think the suggestion of requiring TL1 to like posts would be a fair restriction that would be easy enough to implement.

24 Likes

I do hope you understand that addressing symptoms (attempts to game the vote) without addressing root causes (the underlying dislike of AI assets and development tools) is going to simply mean that a different approach is going to be used next time for the same purpose.

There is a significant contingent of people on this forum who view any usage of AI in the development of a game as inherently disqualifying, and they will continue to act against the usage of AI in games posted here every opportunity they get until there is a clear stance taken from the administration/ownership regarding their stance on AI.

You need to put an end to the debate on the forum here, by either explicitly disallowing AI games or explicitly disallowing attacks on games for using AI. In addition to the voting becoming political instead of actually reflecting preference of the games being put forward, the developer of Second Helpings was run off the site over allegations of AI “vibe coding” (which they denied, but could not prove - because how can you prove a negative?). This is only going to continue to escalate further without some clear intervention from the people in charge.

If you don’t ban AI games, the people who want AI games banned are going to use whatever avenues they can to pursue alternative routes to punish people for making games using AI content. And it doesn’t make for a better development environment, it makes for a more toxic one due to what equals out to witch-hunting. I’ll state right now that I question the long-term viability of AI games, since none of the AI assets can be copyrighted in the United States due to current case-law and so a “vibe-coded” game with AI art assets could literally be copied and resold wholesale and there is no viable recourse for the developer (as all the assets were technically built using a machine which cannot create copyrightable content). But at this point I don’t exactly care about that. I care about the fact that there is an ongoing angry dispute over the use of AI on this site that boils over every three months or so like clockwork and results in people leaving each and every time.

Handle the root cause. Answer the basic AI question, either by banning the use of AI in games or banning the criticism of games for using AI. The half-measures are only pushing users to do things they shouldn’t because they feel as if their concerns are being ignored.

9 Likes

This is a fair point, and I do plan on addressing that mainly in the final post of this series of responses when I talk about the future of Weight Gaming and I hope a bit in my AI centric post which I am aiming to have released next week.

Due to how complex that topic a lone is this post is just addressing the voting itself as well as setting some ground work for the future responses.

That all being said your comment about “explicitly disallowing attacks on games for using AI” I think is a good point showing one of the areas we have faltered in. Our rules already prohibit such attacks like the ones against Second Helpings as you pointed out. In my eyes most of those have been us not being able to respond to moderation issues fast enough to prevent such escalation (which was also the case with second helpings). That is solely on us and is a failure on our side when it comes to moderating the site.

Once again I will get a bit more into it in my 5th post but while I wont ever ban what could be reasonable criticism I have been heavily considering us being more aggressive in the enforcement of our current rules instead of how laissez-faire we have operated up to this point.

4 Likes

on the internet everything is an original sin nobody can cleanse themselves up until they die IRL, this is just another daily occurrence that wont stop until the groups arguing wipe one side out

the best approach isnt to nanny the two sides, it’s to put a clamp on the ones that take it too far on both and give them a solid hit to the head if they keep it up

1 Like

(Wasteline artist, for the non ai elements) Thanks for making the post, it’s still a sore spot to see my first attempt at doing some art for a game in this space be completely overlooked by certain people and certain judges in the Jam because I couldn’t draw enough for a full game in the timespace alloted.
We’ve been hard at work replacing all the AI elements between projects so hopefully everyone will be happier with it’s existence when that comes to fruition.

12 Likes

Hey everyone, I really hope this place can stay a peaceful and happy space, not one filled with arguments or conflict. Maybe understanding AI as just a tool can help our community grow in a healthy and organized way. As a creator, I’m not against using AI tools — and as a player, as long as things are clearly labeled, it’s totally up to me whether to join in or not. Thanks to the admins for all your hard work, and I wish everyone a great day ahead!

4 Likes

While I don’t feel it’s the right time or place to discuss the morality of AI, what I can say is that while the situation is not technically cheating, it does fall into a very dubious gray zone.

The reason as to why is clear, as the members of the community who were most active in participating within the community, and the ones who had up to that point been the primary source of engagement with the project, were superseded by users whose only notable point of activity was in a concentrated effort to skew the results of a contest that they had no previous interaction with until a specific moment.

It would be naive at best, and deliberately malicious at worst, to deny the fact that as Grotlover said, that this was an action done specifically to guarantee the current voting trends would be circumvented. The argument of it being the morally correct choice is to me, irrelevant. It was not a decision made based on the objective quality of the game, or its’ adherence to the rules of the contest. It was a decision made only using the flimsy justification of its’ morality, and with full knowledge that it was only done for that reason.

If this event had occurred on its’ own without the lead-up in prior communication between a specific third party, and later their proxies, then the situation could be argued to be ‘natural’ insofar as people coincidentally banded together to “take a stand” against an idea, which itself is still dubious, but less so than the reality.

What clearly occurred is that an individual using deliberately obfuscated and vague explanations of the situation created a call to arms using this information to manipulate the vote for the benefit of their own agenda, and in doing so skewed the results of the contest in a way that was completely outside the primary voter consensus up to the point of their action.

At no point did this individual make their intentions clear in public, rather they operated behind the scenes to accomplish their goal, which demonstrates a knowledge that what they were doing was wrong. Regardless of your opinions on the reasoning, this is an unacceptable action that only irrevocably damaged the trust and integrity of a contest that was always about igniting a passion for creativity, and only furthered the rift between an already fracturing community.

Ironically, that kind of manipulation and obfuscation is the exact kind of thing that to anyone looking in, could easily be seen to be an immoral action that preyed on the trust of that community, and of those used as unwitting pawns for the sake of a vendetta that clearly stretched back far further than they would ever admit.

5 Likes

Just out of curiosity, what’s a normal range of T0 votes as opposed to obvious vote cramming percentages? Or is it just vibes based?

The short but unsatisfying answer is “it depends.”

Generally speaking we split it into 3 buckets.

  1. Those who post their game and then don’t do any call to action for votes usually get between 0-15% TL0. Factors that determine how much they get is usually word of mouth and what I would describe as “curb appeal” of their game.

  2. Those who put out a general call to action or a call to action within an existing community outside of WG usually can be anywhere between 10-30%. The reason for this large swing is its highly dependent on how large and active their community outside of WG is and how aggressively they do their calls to action. Generally speaking devs with an active discord community built up from a patreon for example will usually swing around the 25-30% range. I would say the average case though would be closer to 15-20% of their votes assuming the dev has no large following and is just boosting their games in discords, twitter, bluesky, ect.

  3. For a dev who has a very large following outside of WG we can see TL0 votes rates >50% depending on how aggressively they do calls to action and how active their fanbase is. The largest I think I ever saw was abound 60% but that number could be skewed since it was one of the earlier jams, and tbh there are not many devs that fall into this bucket and participate in the jam so our data set here is fairly sparse. Generally speaking we usually see this with very popular artists, though its not unheard of for popular witters to draw some similar numbers. An oddity with this bucket though is it doesn’t usually apply to popular devs on itch.io as much. I am unsure if this is because they are not as aggressive on calls to action in general or if because the game is usually on itch so most users just go straight for the download and dont even register the call to action or get confused and think they need to rate it there.

Yeah that checks out with what I saw just counting people who have only left a single like on the site, about 29% (43/149) for Wasteline and 10% (15/153) for RogueWeight. Strangely enough the single likers only start about halfway down for Rogueweight, whereas they’re evenly distributed for Wasteline (Though my counts might be off by a couple, I skipped over people who had a bunch of badges since I assumed they would be active and have at least one like on something else).
I guess to do a proper analysis it would have to be people who have only 1 like on Wasteline vs people who only have likes on 2024 Gain Jam projects that aren’t Wasteline. That would take a lot longer to count up though and would be difficult to compare directly since that number would have to be a percentage of unique people that liked any 2024 Gain Jam project, which is also a more difficult number to get. Plus it would be hard to separate out people who joined just to vote in general vs people who joined exclusively to vote against Wasteline.
I do agree that just excluding TL0 people from the community vote would probably be the best solution (however feasible that is) considering it’s the community vote and not the “community plus random people who don’t actually use the site” vote.

Ya about that point where you see those TL0’s coming in is about around the start of the incident.

The indicator I personally used when we where looking into it was the delta time between a call to action/account creation/time of first like which we found to be a fairly good indicator but we can do this since we can fairly easily build a timeline with our audit logs to better view the trends (though sometimes tracking down the calls to action can be a bit of a pain). This also helped us identify users who just threw around random likes to the lower performers to try to cover their tracks.

That all being said though with a few exceptions TL1 & TL2 votes usually indicate who would win and TL0s don’t usually swing the vote very often. I dont remember the exact numbers but if before the incident if we removed Wastelines TL0 votes they still would have won by I think ~5.

I know for me personally anyone with legitimate interested in these types of games should be considered to be in the wider community even if they don’t use the site since there are still quite a few people that dont even know we exist. That being said this incident did show us that some people are willing to try to weaponize TL0 so I do feel requiring at least TL1 to vote is a reasonable restriction to try to discourage that.